BUMoose really called out Hatch's proposal for what it is
"garbage". I challenge Senator Hatch to give up his government paid for
health plan and then go meet with folks who have pre-existing condition and
explain to them face-to-face that they cannot obtain health insurance because of
their pre-existing condition. Then if Senator Hatch (heaven forbid) were to
come down with a "pre-existing" condition - then he could feel what it
is like to be denied insurance. Until he has some first hand knowledge of how
real people live, I don't see how he can help craft real solutions. Senator Hatch, with all due respect - come and meet with sick people who
have been denied coverage and who can't afford health care in our existing
"market driven system" and then I challenge the Deseret News to publish
their interview with you. Hold one of your "town hall meeting" with
real people who have real health problems and who are left out of the system -
then you will have some moral authority to make proposals.
To "Schnee " let me make it easier to understand. If I couldn't
afford to go to the doctor before the ACA, what makes you think I now have the
money to pay for the deductible to get care now?I couldn't
afford it before, and I can't afford it now. Either way I go to the ER and
get care. The difference is now you pay for me twice. Once for the insurance,
then again at the ER.
This should have been labeled as paid for advertisement.
mikhail- "Conservatives are not a cheerleading squad for one party or
another - which seems to be something that progressives seem to misunderstand -
but want the best for the people ...'When it comes to the ACA,
too bad the people disagree - they and Obama liked Romneycare so much they voted
for Obama twice once he embraced Mitt's plan.
@jsf"The ACA forces all Americans to purchase insurance plans from
insurance companies. If you think Democrats were not influenced by national
insurance companies to pass the ACA you are living in a dream world. "Lieberman (living in the land of insurance companies, Connecticut),
Lincoln, and Landrieu in particular were consequential in stopping Obamacare
from having a public option. Of course... the only reason there is no public
option is because these few and the Republicans filibustered it (and Reid could
only manage 51+ for the public option, not 60+). "Hatch is a
progressive "I wish. As a Progressive myself, I'd be much
happier with him if he were. Oh and Progressives supported the Civil Rights
movement. There was a large swath of Democrats that did oppose it, if you said
that you'd be correct... the Dixiecrats then became Republicans who
proceeded to win all the Southern states since then for the most part.
@Redshirt"If I couldn't afford care before the ACA, what makes
you think I can afford it now?"Subsidies. Unless you
hypothetically made the amount in between current Medicaid and Medicaid
expansion in which case you don't get subsidies because the law assumed
every state would expand Medicaid... and then your state didn't. Those
people have a problem and definitely there needs to be some sort of fix in place
(perhaps just extending down the range of income that gets subsidies). "The ACA has pushed up costs, reduced what insurance covers, and will add
to the national debt."The first is not true compared to what the
original trendline was (you know... "bending the cost curve") and the
last few years have seen the slowest growth in healthcare costs in half a
century. The second is an odd claim since conservatives keep complaining that
these plans cover a bunch of unnecessary stuff that they don't want to pay
for. The third is not true; the repeal of Obamacare bill was scored by the CBO
as increasing the deficit 100 billion over ten years.
Come on, SC fan, use some sense. "If ACA is such a re-election running away
from it?" It's because some people (with "Conservative"
leanings) are slow to catch on, and those people just happen to live all over
America. Two years from now, most of those people will be won over to the
ACA.You are saying SS was "forced upon the American people?"
. . . just like the ACA? Well then, the ACA is in some pretty good company,
because Social Security has been extremely beneficial to Americans, and after
several decades, most people know that. That is why it is here to stay too.
BTW, in the beginning Social Security was also incessantly slammed by
Republicans, just like the ACA.Your reflexive "tort reform"
mantra does NOT pertain here, although I can see why Republicans incessantly
harp on it. Tort reform would make it more difficult for people to sue
malefactors, and the Republican Party is top heavy with malefactors.I get it.
Hatch's CARE plan is similar to one floated by the Republicans during the
healthcare debate which the CBO estimated would cost as much or more as
Obamacare, yet increase coverage for very few currently uninsured.In
2009 the Washington Post reported:" According to CBO, the
GOP's alternative will shave $68 billion off the deficit in the next 10
years. The Democrats, CBO says, will slice $104 billion off the deficit.In 2019, after 10 years of the Republican plan, CBO estimates that
...The Republican alternative will have helped 3 million people secure coverage,
which is barely keeping up with population growth. Compare that to the
Democratic bill, which covers 36 million more people.The Democratic
bill, in other words, covers 12 times as many people and saves $36 billion more
than the Republican plan."
One previous poster inferred a tie between insurance companies and republicans
in fighting against ACA. But a serious real look at who benefits from the ACA
shows who is collaborating. The ACA does not provide health care, or health
insurance on its own. The ACA forces all Americans to purchase insurance plans
from insurance companies. If you think Democrats were not influenced by
national insurance companies to pass the ACA you are living in a dream world.
Can you imagine the joy of an industry where the government forces everyone to
buy your product. As for Hatch and a republican policy, he is as
tied to the insurance industry as the Democrats. Hatch is a progressive in the
same vein as the progressives, liberals that fought against civil rights, gave
us prohibition, segregated the military and Washington DC just prior to WWI,
espoused eugenic ideology promoting abortion among the minorities as a means of
dare we call it for what it was, genocide.
If ACA is such a good program, then why are Democrats running for re-election
running away from it? If it is such a good plan, then why is it consistantly
unpopular with the majority of people? That ACA might end up like SS and be
forced upon the American people, taking away any CHOICE, is certainly possible,
and obviously the main objective of the ACA in the first place. It is just a
matter of if YOU, whoever you are that supports government controlled health,
care really know what you want. People who have experienced such in other
countries know that there are many shortcomings to such a system. As Charles
Krauthammer said, we in America had without a doubt the best health care system
in the world. And the most expensive. The way to get costs down on health is
through tort reform and stop the massive costs of malpractice. There should in
America be many options for health care, at many different prices and services,
depending upon the individules needs. ACA is really a first step to single
payer, which has been a liberal dream forever.
@The Real Maverick"The bottom line comes down to Mitt being a
republican and Obama not."NOT true. As Forrest's momma
said, "Stupid is, as stupid does." Conservatives are not a cheerleading
squad for one party or another - which seems to be something that progressives
seem to misunderstand - but want the best for the people, based upon principles
which progs also don't seem to understand.
@MikhailHmmm pre existing conditions cover is just an act of
humanity.Birth control is easy, you see pre natal, birth and post
natal cost a lot lot more than going on the pill or other contraceptives.
Somewhere in the tune of several thousand dollars cheaper. Makes sense no?The rest of the first world knows this, thats why the US is last in
nearly every healthcare metric in comparison to other first world countries.
It's kinda funny to see the same repubs who cheerlead Mitt Romney and his
Romneycare become so furious at Obamacare. Yet, ask any of these cheerleaders
what the difference is.Crickets.Well???The
bottom line comes down to Mitt being a republican and Obama not. Had Bush passed
Obamacare instead of kicking the can down the road, utah would have accepted
Obamacare with open arms and already expanded Medicaid.
Do you Obamacare disciples really believe that the pre-existing condition
limitations and the birth control enhancements are going to produce health care
of higher quality and of lower cost? Really? What evidence do you have that
such has happened in the history of the world?
I find it astounding at what appears to be an organized effort by progressives
to attack Deseret News editorials which likely reflect the opinion of the
majority of those people who actually subscribe to and read the DN.I
also find it remarkable that there are actually people who believe that a
government can produce a market condition superior in cost savings and quality
to that produced by private concerns in an open and competitive market. What
evidence do these progressive kool-aide drinkers have that there is any business
that is performed in superior manner by a government? In the matter of health
care, the market involves the same number of people, the same illnesses, the
same technologies, the same providers. What changes with Obamacare? Oh, yes,
it is forcing people, under threat of "taxation," to purchase an
insurance product that they would not purchase on their own. Therefore,
"free market" does not apply. What evidence do you paragons of
"good intentions" have that the government will provide something that
costs less and delivers more than what has already been delivered in the past,
or may be delivered as market conditions change?
To "Pagan" I would rather file bankruptcy than die or increase my risk
of death like the socialized medicine countries experience.But if
you want to tell me how the ACA has changed anything I am ready to hear it. If
I couldn't afford care before the ACA, what makes you think I can afford it
now?To "KJB1" you do know that the Jim Crowe laws were
passed by Congress and upheld by the Supreme Court until people finally
challenged them and got them removed. The same can be said about prohibition.
Just becuase a law is passed does not mean it is good or cannot be
eliminated.To "freedomingood" actually conservatives had a
lot of ideas that would have lowered costs for health care. They wanted to
enact tort reform, allow policies to be sold across state lines, and a bunch of
other things that would have lowered costs by cutting government regulation.To "joeandrade" how is the ACA better than what we had before?
The ACA has pushed up costs, reduced what insurance covers, and will add to the
I am dumbfounded by the supporters of Obamacare. It has proved more expensive
than we were told (premiums have gone up, not down). We were told that we could
keep our doctors (a lie). We were told we could keep our insurance (another
lie). The website is a joke. In many cases people cannot go to their preferred
hospitals. It seems completely different than what we were told it would be.It is impossible to return to pre-Obamacare time and attempt to create a
health system that would be much more beneficial. But we can insist on
political leaders in DC to rewrite sections of the law that are unacceptable.Obama's pride is keeping us from correcting the law where it would
be in everyone's best interest to do so.I highly doubt that
Obama would have won election if he had been truthful--telling Americans that
many would lose their insurance, their doctors, their premiums would rise,
select groups would receive exemptions from the law, other groups would be
allowed delays in implementation and enforcement, etc.
The Editorial Board should disclose if they are getting advertisement revenue
from "the patient care Act" proponents. That is fundamentally fair and
Weary of this papers negative spinning and whining editorials. Have relatives
that have healthcare thanks to the Act. Helped one person enroll in 15 minutes
"This dnews editorial brought I mean bought and paid for by Orrin Hatch and
the Republican party."Actually, Orrin wrote an editorial about
how bad Obamacare was and never once mentioned that he had helped to pen a
replacement.I dont think Hatch or the Republican party are too keen
on the Patient Care Act.
Any health plan should be judged by its effect, not whether it establishes
Utah's independence or whether it supports the president's vision of
the federal government as the ultimate provider. It shouldn't be considered
a political victory or defeat, but rather does it solve the problem. Give
Utah's plan a chance and, like the ACA which is work in progress, adjust if
needs are unmet.
The ACA is a joke. Obama had to lie to people to get it to pass. It seems a
bunch of people staying in their parents basement all day have nothing better to
do than try and defend the ACA. I pity you because if you were one of the
people out there working and earning your money to pay for healthinsurance you
would see that the ACA made health insurance more expensive for the working man.
It destroys the middle class advantage and makes them pay more for their
insurance.At least the the patient care act will actually bring back
real insurance, and discourage Cadillac plans and medicaid abuse.
@ techpubs, your comment is a rationalization and kind of misses the point.
Yes, he should should have worn a seat belt. We don't know how much
difference it would have made. To say is speculative. A higher coverage limit
would help, yes, but we don't know what it is. In any case most policies
don't cover enormous bills like this. Again, you make speculative
assertions. The point is, if he had health insurance, his situation would be
vastly improved, especially as the ACA barred lifetime limits. Your speculative
"what-ifs" are meaningless because they don't reflect reality. In
the end, we need a comprehensive system as Europe has.
@FatherofFour:You said "Simply put, in January of 2017 President
Santorum (or Gingrich, Perry, Palin, whoever) cannot just yank health care away
from 15 million+ people and expect that to be OK." Unfortunately
that is exactly what the PPACA has done and will continue to do once President
Obama stops pushing back start dates on implementation of new rules for employer
sponsored coverage. Now everyone knows that while the standard comeback is
"They are getting a better policy that covers more things." But many
people didn't need coverage for the things they didn't have in their
old policy. So why is it OK for the PPACA to cancel your old policy
and force you to purchase a new more expensive policy with coverage you
didn't need or want?
@Esquire:You said "The ACA was passed for a reason. Take a look at the
pages of your own paper. In today's online edition, there is a story of a
young man in an auto accident who is facing massive medical costs. He was
uninsured." Yet two other actions would have prevented him from
being in this situation. 1. Had he worn his seat belt which may not be
required in Utah but is in many other States he probably would have less severe
injuries and only a short stay in the hospital. 2. Had his girlfriend had
better medical coverage on her car insurance policy most of the bills would be
paid by auto insurance. Also we were not told why he didn't
have his own medical insurance. So there is a very real possibility that even
with coverage under the PPACA he might not have been able to pay for his share
of the expenses.
Great job, Hatch! Now all you need is access to a DeLorean and 1.21 Gigawatts
The ACA does need to be greatly improved and expanded. It was an imperfect
compromise because of the obstructionism of insurance and pharmaceutical
companies, the GOP, and other vested interests in a 'market-based'
system - including Sen. Hatch and his donors and sponsors. ACA is
far better than what we had before; it can and will be improved and expanded -
perhaps eventually becoming a full, national Medicare system - and hopefully NOT
'free'market' based or enhanced.The latest Hatch
Dispatch includes its usual arrogant statements, but this time it outright lies.
Hatch tries to make 3 anti-ObamaCare points - using a very bold font:Higher premiums and fewer choices? - perhaps yes for a very few - a lie when
it comes to most people;Seniors losing plans, benefits, doctors? -
not the sources I read;Job creators suffer uncertainty? - just the
opposite! Job creators (I was one some years ago) can do their entrepreneurial
magic without worrying about their employees' health care - they can just
enroll in ObamaCare. So Hatch’s facts are distorted, at best,
and his arrogance marches on unabated! The Deseret News should be as critical of
Hatch as it is of Obama.
To SCFan and in agreement (mostly) with FatherOfFour if any of the predictions
on the number of participants by the next presidential election from
Father's 13M to the national projection of 16M are correct that constitutes
a large block of voters. Assuming the majority of them are happy with what
they've got if the Republicans campaign on their same old repeal platform
that creates a large block of voters who would probably be one issue voters and
vote against the Republicans and their repeal threat. We probably see this same
scenario most often concerning gun rights. I doubt any political party would
risk alienating that big of a block of voters. Where I disagree with
Father is on the names he threw out as the next president. If any of the polls
currently out there are correct and I realize it is extremely early the next
president won't be a he at all but rather a she. And if that is the case it
really is Katie bar the door on the healthcare issue.
GaryO, as you well know, the people foaming at the mouth, soaking in
FoxNews/Hannity/Beck/whatever-demogogue are not true conservatives.True
conservatives seemed to die out in the '80s. In reality, the
conservatives have been calling for change (in a different direction) more than
liberals for the last 25 years. That's when the "conservative"
movement left me behind.Instead of being voices for a tempered, reasoned
approach to issues, these so-called conservatives are perpetually whipped up
into a frenzy by their favorite propaganda machine (gee, which one?).You'd be hard pressed to find an well-informed, rational-thinking
conservative these days.I pine for the good ol' days of conservatism.
SCfan,I am not saying it is set in stone. However, 7 million people
are currently using it, (plus those who took advantage of the SCHIP and Medicaid
expansion). If we assume that the next two years will see 50% of the enrollment
that this last open enrollment period had, that would be another 6 million
before the next presidential election. Plus, a few of the republican governors
who had previously rejected the Medicaid expansion are now indicating they will
accept it. Simply put, in January of 2017 President Santorum (or Gingrich,
Perry, Palin, whoever) cannot just yank health care away from 15 million+ people
and expect that to be OK. The idea of just getting rid of Obamacare is gone.
That ship has sailed. Come up with a better proposal or stick with it.
To all of you who seem to believe that the ACA is set in stone just as the Ten
Commandments, sorry to inform you. In our system, a new Congress and different
President can change anything they want to. It's not if they can, the
question is will they. If enough Americans find ACA not up to what was
"promised" by President Barack H. Obama, then elections in the future
will ride on those changes being made. And, as things look now, the first such
election might be coming in 2014. P.S. The Koch Brothers? REALLY?
I know some of you get your talking points from left wing web sites, but do you
really think the Democrats are going to win by trying to demonize people about
1% of Americans have ever heard of? All the Republicans will have to do is
counter with George Soros. Harry Reid is getting pretty senile if he thinks
that is the ticket to victory.
Alas, what's done is done. It doesn't matter if the Republicans offer
4 new alternatives to the ACA. Over 7 million people are part of the ACA
program, and it is not going away. If Orrin Hatch was really interested in
improving the healthcare system, he would start proposing changes to the ACA to
make it better.
Here's the deal conservatives, you looked the other way about rising
healthcare costs and insurance companies abuses and then you're angry when
liberals take your own proposed ideas from Mitt Romney and use them to START
fixing the healthcare system.No.
"The PCA would allow greater flexibility for insurance companies to craft
their products to meet the needs of their customers, allowing them to provide
the kind of streamlined, less expensive plans that have been cancelled by the
ACA. "Translation:Insurance companies could go back to
selling junk policies which offer little to no coverage.The CARE Act
also requires people to pay more taxes on their health insurance premiums.Finally, it protects people with pre-existing conditions, as long as
they have had continuous coverage BUT what about people who haven't had
continuous coverage?The CARE Act is merely a return to the status
The fact that once again under Hatch's proposal an individual could be
denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition is enough of a reason to
toss this mess right in the garbage where it belongs. The time has come to
improve on what we have, not start over. Republicans should get on board and
help with that process or get out of the way.
As much as you wanted, tried and encouraged the ACA to fail, it is not fitting
that the website was glitchy on the last enrollment day. On the other hand, in
spite of your efforts, and indeed fate and the efforts of those trying to make
it work, it seems to be a success. Or at least heading in that direction.
That's a lot better than what you're proposing, but not nearly close
enough to the single payer system we need.
You guys do realize that the ACA was signed into law four years ago, right? And
upheld by the Supreme Court two years ago?Maybe your wishful
thinking will help Romney defeat President Obama while you're at it...
"The PCA would allow Medicaid patients to get private insurance instead of
government coverage, which would likely lower costs to taxpayers."What??? Where has the editorial board of the Deseret News been for the past
thirty years? Is it not amply clear that for profit insurance companies
actually RAISE costs to consumers? Their entire business model is based on
paying out the least amount for claims while raising premiums as high as they
possibly can. Insurance companies' overhead is much higher than that of
Medicare, for example--it costs money to pay those CEOs and advertise and fund
their claims denial apparatus. So Medicare's overhead is something like
2-3% versus 10-20% for insurance companies.Not to mention that if we
look at the rest of the Western world, they basically all have single-payer
systems (otherwise known as socialized medicine) and they offer universal
coverage for HALF of what we spend.So any movement to privatize more
of our healthcare system will lead to higher costs, not lower costs.
Let me say that this paper getting fully on the anti-Obama bandwagon is beyond
disappointing. The ACA was passed for a reason. Take a look at the pages of
your own paper. In today's online edition, there is a story of a young man
in an auto accident who is facing massive medical costs. He was uninsured.
This is what the ACA is trying to avoid. Please, connect the dots. Millions
signed up, many waiting to the last minute which caused the system to falter.
This is, in the end, success. Your snarky attacks serve no purpose. Turning to
farcical bandaids as alternatives does not solve the problem. If you
weren't so partisan and negative, you could encourage your readers to
comply with the law of the land, and we can move forward with any fixes that the
ACA could use. Perhaps a constructive attitude from this paper would be
beneficial rather than falling into the slimmy mess of the haters. This paper
owes its readers at least the semblance of adhering to the 12th Article of Faith
inasmuch as you are the voice of your sponsor/owner.
I read the DN to get a different perspective from the paper and it's
readers. But, I am often amazed at how bias and decievious it's editorials
are. Also, its puzzling how contrary posts are often rejected for using the
same language and punctuation the paper itself uses. Concerning this editioral
the writer quotes"The PCA would allow Medicaid patients to get private
insurance instead of government coverage, which would likely lower costs to
taxpayers. The PCA approach would go a long way toward making Medicaid
sustainable for future generations."Excuse me, but that's exactly
what the ACA does. It allows consumers to get guarenteed private insurance
which increases the pool of users while lowering costs (that's what the
research shows, we'll have to wait to see the data instead of relying on
Faux News).The DN's editorials often lack sound reasoning instead
relying on emotionally based arguments that appeal to the communities
conservative views. But we should expect better than that from our local paper
and hold them to the same standards they impose on their readers who submit
Hatch's PCA is a scam. It taxes your insurance payments so you get nailed
twice. It makes no provision for covering pre-existing conditions unless
you've been "continuously insured." This is called a Catch-22:
"We'll cover your condition, but only if you're already
covered." That's a good one. Of course, it is April.....
The only thing this American is wary of, is the maniacal obstructionism of the
conservatives.In spite of a gigantic mis-information campaign by the
right, especially Koch Brother funded groups, the ACA has had close to 7 million
people sign up. If the red states had been on board the number of sign-ups would
be huge.Liberals have led the way on civil rights, Social Security,
Medicare, labor laws, etc. and in 5 years we will add the ACA to that list!
We are almost midway through 2014.Sorry repubs, this whole health
care reform ship has already sailed. Maybe you folks should have
done something other than kick the can down the road when you had the power to
actually do something for the American people (2000-08).
There should always be many alternatives to the ACA. Hopefully the ACA will end
up being one of many options Americans will have to choose from for their
medical care. Leave the ACA where it belonged, namely, for the presently
uninsured who can't get insurance due to not having a job, or having an
expensive pre-existing condition that private insurers won't take or will
cost too much for the average citizen to pay for. That last, by the way, is the
best part of the spirit of ACA. Whether it will be reality is yet to be seen.
The last thing the ACA should become is a single payer/single provider system.
That will end up with you getting your teeth pulled instead of having root
canals and expensive crowns. Believe me, I lived in England for 2 years, and it
is no myth about their bad and frequently missing teeth. All courtesy of the
National Health Care system over there. Which if you don't have money,
you're stuck with.
The Patient Care Act? Really? Even the House republicans won't touch that
with a ten foot pole. They can't get it past their own party.
On the one hand "This is better than the ACA" isn't saying much;
when you're throat-ramming something as clearly and knowingly divisive,
immoral, and government-centered as obamacare, you know something is horribly
wrong with it.On the other hand, PCARE certainyl sounds like a
decent alternative, assuming we're excluding the status quo. Then again, I
haven't read it yet.
The Patient Care Act has not exactly been embraced by the GOP. If anything, it
has been almost completely ignored.The GOP base seems to have the
belief that healthcare system in America has been working fine. It does not
appear that they see any need to address or change it. That boggles my mind.I will give Hatch and company credit for at least putting forth specific
proposals. It is (or should be) a starting point for actual debate and far more
constructive than just screaming REPEAL over and over.As in many
things, the first step is to acknowledge that we have a problem.
So I just read on Senator Hatch's website his "proposal" but it
doesn't actually say how the patient care act is going to work, it mainly
seems to be saying that it's better than the ACA. But those 5 pages are not
a plan, is there somewhere that you can find the actual plan, not a list of
talking points that explains nothing.
"This latest snafu doesn’t come as a surprise to a nation weary of
President Barack Obama’s signature health care legislation." Not so.Although Republicans are extremely slow in recognizing it,
Americans are becoming more and more weary of Republican obstructionism and
resistance to progress.Haven't you Right Wingers begun to
notice the huge gap between what you thought was true, and what is actually
true?No . . . FOX "NEWS" and Rush Limbaugh do not report
the news. They simply reinforce your prejudices in an attempt to turn your
misperceptions into a reality. They think they can create a bandwagon of
misperception that a whole lot of people will want to jump on, thus creating a
Republican voting majority and the desired reality.It's not
working though. Sensible people are jumping off by the thousands.More people support than oppose the ACA, and if Republicans insist on
challenging it, you might well lose seats in Congress . . . So just keep on
doing what you're doing.Republicans have certainly lost the
trust of the more discerning Americans.
The Republicans are on the wrong side of history once again. Such is the nature
of American "Conservatism."Before Democrats proposed
the ACA, huge oligopolistic insurance companies had Republican legislators in
their pockets, and Republican politicians gave NO THOUGHT at all to health
care reform. Republican politicians were not about to stop a gravy train that
had proven so lucrative to exploiters who funded their campaigns and otherwise
lined the pockets of Republican "public servants."Thus,
Americans paid more money for health care than anywhere else in the world, and
achieved only middling results. Republican Party leadership was by and large
extremely happy with perpetuating a status quo that made chumps out of American
citizens while enriching exploiters with close ties to Republican politics.Democrats persevered in pushing through the ACA, while Republicans, who
now hypocritically champion their own government-sponsored health care
"alternative," screamed SOCIALISM.Republicans should stop
wasting time and resources, and actually do something for this nation instead of
obstructing progress. More Americans now support the ACA than oppose it. The
Repubs should just get on board and work to improve it, not replace it.
Letting people keep junk policies is hardly a benefit... at least not for anyone
who gets sick."The PCA would allow Medicaid patients to get
private insurance instead of government coverage, which would likely lower costs
to taxpayers. "There is no reason to believe it'd lower
costs to taxpayers, and you know why? One of the gripes about Medicare/Medicaid
is the claim that it doesn't pay out enough. If it's not for profit,
and is allegedly shortchanging hospitals/doctors, then it can't possibly be
more expensive than private insurance. Public options just are cheaper,
that's why the insurance lobby worked so hard to get rid of the public
option from Obamacare.
This dnews editorial brought I mean bought and paid for by Orrin Hatch and the
From the article. '..Hatch has proposed the Patient CARE Act, a
more market-based approach to health care.' In 2014. Americans have been filing bankruptcy due to medical causes, since 1980. 1980. Dollar short, and a day late. America
will not look for alternatives from the GOP, only AFTER Democrats created a
"The PCA would allow greater flexibility for insurance companies to craft
their products to meet the needs of their customers, allowing them to provide
the kind of streamlined, less expensive plans that have been cancelled by the
ACA." Of course allowing stripped down plans would make the granting of
individual subsidies as allowed under the ACA, much more difficult, as you must
know. On the basis of that alone I would reject the PCA.Moreover,
the House of Representatives won't pass the PCA. For example, the American
Enterprise Institute finds it insufficiently "market oriented."